Saturday, September 19, 2009

I was watching BBC classic Yes Minister, when I stumbled across this quotation by Sir Arnold Robinson, the cabinet secretary while he is discussing certain issue with Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Power goes with permanence. Impermanence is impotence. Rotation is Castration.

This, in my opinion is one of the fundamental observations regarding power, which when applied to politics and sociology, helps us in understanding the subtle undercurrents of the time and its effect on individuals, society, polity and Rashtra as a whole.

Power indeed goes with permanence. In context of the government and the administration, it can be seen that the real power-holders in government are not the elected and ephemeral representatives of people, but the stationary and permanent bureaucracy. There is no change in fundamental policies of any stable nation, irrespective of which party is in power, and what is the political party's outlook. For example, the economic liberalisation policy of P.V.Narasimha Rao government was continued by A.B.Vajpayee government, even though their stated economic, social and religious objectives were poles apart.

It applies to every major policy decisions taken by any stable governing entity. The fundamental policy never changes and this permanence is ensured by the stable bureaucracy which ensures its execution. Hence, the secretaries wield more power than the ministers, who take half of their tenure in understanding how things work in administration.

The Bigger Picture

The above example provides a very partial picture, however. Since different people seek different forms of power, the power wielded by a bureaucrat will be different from the one wielded by a politician or a scientist or a teacher or a soldier. However, this principle applies ever where.

With permanence, comes stability; and with stability comes prosperity and power. A cursory look back at history shows the tendency of consolidation of power for longer time over larger area and more people is the key towards prosperity and rejuvenation of individual, society and Rashtra. Polity is the basic factor which nourishes all other branches of life and knowledge. Nothing affects every aspect of life of individual, society and rashtra more vigorously and profoundly, than Polity. Hence, a stable and yet ideologically fertile Polity is the most important factor which contributes to the rise of a Rashtra.

All men of power want more power. However, there is a catch in this statement. The key question to be asked here is what is the character of the particular man of power under consideration? How content or otherwise he is when he consolidates enough power to satisfy his immediate issues? It has to be understood that time and power are in direct relation. The longer one stays in power, more the conslidated power he possesses and higher are his capabilities of projecting his power over larger area for longer time. However, even after sufficient consolidation of power in space and time, how willing is one person to project his power beyond his domains depends upon the degree of mercantile and mercenary character in his personality.

Mercantile and Mercenary mentality

This mentality is present in each and every individual to various extent. However, when this mentality is too strongly ingrained upon the mind of the power-seeker, he tends to prematurely limit his conquest of power as soon as his immediate goals are achieved.

This mentality is represented by those people who are ready to sell their services to highest bidder without considering even a slightest bit about whom are they offering their services and how will it affect the society and nation as a whole.

When an optima is achieved and immediate problems resolved,some people with higher mercenary character become relatively prosperous by partial consolidation of power, they try to maintain the status-quo for as long as they can. They are willing to pay any cost to keep the potential adversary from impacting their set way of life and peace. They are open to make any compromise for tactical victory, without thinking about impending strategic defeat. Such mentality is detrimental for overall progress of society and nation. The classic examples of such mentality is Aambhi of Taxila, Jaichandra of Kannauj and many others.

When such mentality crosses its threshold, everything is opened up for sale, including one's faith, nation, honour and dignity. When a mercantile and mercenary mentality is ingrained in the minds of population, the leaders tend to buy off partial consolidation by pampering to the dissipative and centrifugal forces which avoids complete consolidation of power for longer and farther.

In absence of this mentality, however, the men of power go on to consolidate power longer and farther. This zeal of power projection is the real key towards achievement of any lasting progress as it ensures the permanence of power as well as constant flux of new ideas in every sphere of life owing to material prosperity achieved. This mentality was displayed by Mauryas, Guptas and all the classical empires of ancient India until Harshavardhan of Kannauj.

The Power-Permanence Equilibrium

The projection and subsequent consolidation of power longer and farther requires a ruthless execution of permanence and constant and indigenous reflux of new ideas, not only in polity, but in every aspect of life. However, all the government has to do is to make available suitable platforms for the expression of such ideas prevalent amongst masses. Masses, when accustomed to a particular political system which is powerful, stable and permanent, adapt themselves accordingly, and a dynamic equilibrium is established between individual, society and Rashtra. This equilibrium is very delicate high energy state which is nourished not by morality of the ruler, but largely by the permanence and stability of the rule.

Thus, we come to understanding that governance is never about choice between good or bad, its about the choice between order and chaos. A good thing which will bring in chaos and impermanence, is categorically avoided by the men of power. Permanence favours order. Order favours stability and stability favours prosperity. Once prosperity begins to set in, the giant leap forward for a particular civilization is not far behind.

For different people, power means different things. For all the conceivable definitions of power which vary in every individual, its relationship with permanence remains constant and unchanging. Be it physical or political or administrative or monetary or love or knowledge or spirituality, power comes and amplifies with permanence. Without permanence, power cannot manifest herself in her fullest. Without permanence, she is impotent. Without a stabilizing effect of Shiva, Shakti is worthless. Hence, it is essential for every entity (individual, society or nation) which seeks power to inculcate the habit of permanence and sustainability.

Friday, September 04, 2009

It began as a casual discussion with an interesting friend. And as it so happens most of the times, the thoughts once started, simply refuse to stop and a whole wide avenue of new ideas opens.

The discussion began with my friend describing her experiences while watching the movie - Sense and Sensibility. As is so happens with any involuntary brain-storming sessions, a simple statement and idea initiates a turbulance which follows the butterfly effect of the Chaos Theory to result into a full-fledged cyclone. The statement made by my friend was as follows -

Everyones possess the senses, however to possess sensibilty is something different

Upon my request for further elucidation, the train started. The basic premise of the thought is that everybody possess senses. Or rather sense organs.. However, very ability to use them to their fullest may or may not be there in the possesser. Rather, it varies with the individual from extreme to null. Sometimes man simply lacks the capacity to utilize his senses to its fullest.

Sometimes, looking objectively at things has its own drawbacks. I would like to emphasize at this point is that this is not the way conversation happened. This is just the recollection of that conversation the way I saw it happening, which was partially biased and flawed.

Anyways, I put forth the example of vision as one of the senses. Ability to use this sense is present with the beholder.. but what the subject should be in front of eyes OR what inference should be concluded from the sight ahead is sensibility. This definition helped a bit towards achieiving a local-optima of the conversational graph. But the joy was short-lived, just like the local-optima.

The thought which then struck was that whether or not mind be called as sense-organ. Mind is perfectly capable of simulating experiences which, although are not physically demonstrable, are completely real. While dreaming, everything in the dream-world is real. When hungry in dreams, only the dream-food can satisfy that dream-hunger; not the real food. Of course the corollary to this statement is true as well. This however, establishes that mind is a sense organ too.

A thought, which peeped into my mind but I did not want it to influence the conversation, was the categorization of mind, intellect and ego as masters of Indriyas (organs) by Patanjali's Yogsutra. Mind although acts as the regulator of senses, also has a dual purpose role to play; that of acting as a sixth sense organ itself.

Whilst my friend did not put her arguments along these lines, the neutrality of the thought process in my mind was breached.

The concurrent question which the conversation stumbled upon was that if mind is also a sense-organ, then who determines the sensibility of this part-time sense organ. The answer given by her anthropologically denoted the segregation of mind-intellect-ego which is deeply imprinted upon Indian thought-process. She replied, it is the duty of brain to determine the sensibility of mind, when mind is acting as a sense-organ. My thoughts started running in those directions.

Modern science tends to validate the knowledge based upon direct inferences. The psyche of a scientist is towards demonstrating the effect which generates results which can be testified through the central-dogma of Sense organs to Brain. In case when sense-organs are not capable of sensing the data owing to their design limitations, we tend to invent instruments which act as an extention of our sense-organs in order to generation the organ-compatible results. For example, since we cannot see micro-organisms through naked eye, we invented microscope as the extention of our eye to demonstrate their presence.

This system works as long as mind is considered as a hypothetical entity or only a faculty of brain and the physically demonstrable entities alone are accepted as evidence in court of science. If the multiple role playing mind is accepted to be existing, this line of thinking starts showing up its fundamental flaws.

How can one claim that what I dream was false? Who determines what is true and what is not, if not the experience? Thousands of experiences, which are although highly personalized, cannot be negated as false, simply because it was beyond the domains of physical sense organs. So what is the sensibility of mind in this case. And are there in means to validate and establish at least some parameters to look at the sensibility?

The response which she gave to this line of thought was a watermark of the discussion. She replied and I quote

"It only means what is known for years now, " we never accept the posiibility of somethings existence and it keeps on reminding of its presence (in form of) dreams in this sense..there are people who say I don't dream, they deny its presence.. but they (in their heart) know it exists... while others who haven't thought of (origins/meaning of??) their dreams, continue dreaming.."

The thought of something which is signalling its existence which mankind is long denying was a very appealing idea. And it exists and its existence is felt by us in day-to-day life. Apart from science, there are mane ways of ascertaining the sensibility of mind. In our daily conversations and gossips we refer to certain individual as a sensible person. Certain other as one with no sensibility. Statements like these, or those which convey similar meaning are used everybody of us so frequently that it suggests the existence of certain set of parameters which are employed by human mind to ascertain the degree of sensibility of the mind he is interacting with.

Of course, in such case, nothing is standardized and everything is relative; but that's the beauty of nature. :-) Nature hates standardization and prefers innovation and individualism over stereotypes. The existence of sensibilities, according to us, is privilaged to certain individuals. The mental parameters of calling certain trait sensible or not, determines whether a person seems to be sensible or not. And when we look through our eyes, it seems that although everybody possess the senses, very few possess the sensibility.

And interestingly, this is exactly the sentiment conveyed by her which started the whole discussion and which I quoted at the beginning of this article. The cycle completed its revolution.

As it usually happens with any long-drawn conversations, this conversation too derailed. Its the tendency of human mind. It is creative as long as it is playing on the higher-energy level of consciousness. And the only factor which determines the longetivity of our stay in that highly creative energy level of consciousness is our grip on the present moment. The moment we loose this grip and start thinking about past and/or future, is the exact moment when we loose this creative state. Perhaps this is what Krishna implied when he asked Arjuna to perform action without thinking about the consequences. Perhaps, this exactly is Nishkam-Karmayoga.

The present is the only entity in one's hands. If possible, grasp it. And when grasped, try not to loose it.... Person happy in "the present" is person happy "for ever"....

"I welcome the elders of Aratta Kingdom (not to be confused with Armenian province) and representatives of various city-states and kingdoms from Bactria and Northwest frontier Province of India (Vaahik = Baalhika = Balkh = modern day Afghanistan). Most of the kingdoms and states of this region are now liberated from Greek occupation. Those remaining shall be liberated soon. Aratta kingdom has appointed me as their administrative head, an honour which I cordially accept.

However, the provinces and states need a system, rather than a ruler; a system which rises above the parochial and narrow-minded outlook of provincial form of polity and views this entire Rashtra as one system, one family because that is exactly how a province and a state is indespensibly related to Rashtra. Why are then different provinces and states in continual state of conflict with each other? Won't your heart move in pain when you see your kin in pain? Won't your reach out to help some under-privilaged member of your family? How can you stay neutral in good and bad times of your family members?

Individual sacrificing for the greater good of the society has been our tradition? Why else did Shiv consumed the poison? Why else did sage Dadhichi donate his skeleton? Why is society not ready to sacrifice some of their personal interests and pursuits for the greater good of the community? And why isn't society ready to let gor few of their interests for the greater good of Rashtra? Why does a society believe ardently that its upheavel is possible only by the deterioration of some other community? Why provinces think that the progress achieved by some other province is detrimental to its own rise? Why does in individual display such narrow understanding about inevitibility of violent conflict with other individual for his own survival?

Does a seed display any such conflict with the leaves? Are the roots conflicting with stem and entire tree standing above? Why are we in state of conflict with each other? Don't you think that leaves, roots, stem, branches, flowers, fruits, everything in a tree is the essence of seed through which it originated? Yet, we cannot see the seed when we look that the tree. Our Rashtriyata is something similar to the invisible, yet all-pervasive seed. It exists in the hearts, minds and genes of every Indian. If you delve inside and look for the hidden seed, you will feel the presence of that inherent sense of Rashtriyatva simmering within you. And if this seed of Bhaaratiyavta (Indian-ness) is simmering within every individual of this land, then how am I any different from you in essence?

What was the need then, for us, to fight off the invading Greek-Macedonian Army when we know and perfectly understand that they too have as much right to live on this earth as we do. In spite of this knowledge, we rejected the Greek rule. Why? Because we love freedom. We love independence. We love Self-rule (Swa-Tantra = Self-system). But what does this self-rule and freedom mean?

Does freedom merely means liberation from the political supremacy of certain individual? Does an independent and free individual mean one who can do whatever he feels like doing? Does an individual not need to accept the rules, prohibitions, bondages and responsibilities of society? Does society not need to accept the rules, bondages and responsibilities of Rashtra? Why then an individual bound by society and society bound by Rashtra, feel the freedom and independence? What is the understanding of "Self" which runs common in individual, society and Rashtra? What is that system which gives individual, society and Rashtra a feeling of freedom in spite of the bondage?

Who created that system which we all accept to get bound by willingly? What does this "freedom give that individual sacrifice their lives for its attainment? What is that system, that rule that we refer to as "Self-Rule"? Why do we preferred to live in this "Self-Rule" and rejected the "Foreign-Rule" of the invaders? What is the difference between this "Self" and "Foreign/Non-self"? Why did we not accept that System of invading greeks?

Because, we uphold that system which was created by our thinkers, philosophers and wise-men. Because we have faith in those values of life which were discovered and expounded by our ancestors. That system which was designed for benefitting individual and society was handed over to us as heritage by our fore-fathers. That set of values and world-views which were expounded by our sages in the light of eternal truth and knowledge, is our Self-System and Self-Rule. We have been ascertaining our socio-economic-political system in the light of those values. The value-system expounded and modified by our ancesters can alone be the bed-rock of our personal, social and Rashtriya life. Hence we vouch for Freedom and Self-rule.

But are those set of core values different for different city-states and provinces? Is that set, that system different for Malav (Multan), Kshudrak (northern Sindh)? Is it different for Kekay (northern Punjab), Panchal (Souther Punjab, Haryana and western UP) and rest of India? Is that set of core values and world-views be different for different cities and provinces?

However, we are not able to see the seed which is present within everybody of us. We are not able to see the river of Sanskriti which is flowing through the hearts and minds of every individual and province, thus gloriously manifesting itself, if only we care to witness. Provinces and individuals are the branches and leaves of same giant tree which is manifesting the essence of the one seed in this grand and diverse image. We are unable to see our roots and negating the inherent unity present in us solely based on apparent external differences. We are not able to see the unity in diversity of our Rashtra; or we are willingly neglecting it to assuage our personal and political vested interests.

I understand and agree the existence of major differences between political frame-work and local cultures of different provinces. However, political system is not Sanskriti. Politics and local traditions are complementary to the inherent Sanskriti, but can never supplant the Sanskriti totally and present themselves as an option to Sanskriti.The current of Sanskriti goads individual, society and Rashtra on the path of enlightenment and progress, and this is the aim of polity as well. Why are then we conflicting with each other in the name of system? Perhaps because that individual is not able to see his reflection in society and Rashtra. Or perhaps because of his vested selfish interests. This very lack of integration has resulted in our capitualting our freedom, our honour and dignity in front of invaders.

It should be noted that the invaders did not distinguish between us based on our subtle differences in political frameworks and local traditions and culture. They identified all of us as Indians and treated everybody of us who came in their way with equal brutality and suppression. It was the misfortune of ths land that all the kingdoms and states did not put forth an united front against invading macedonian army. Had we done so, would it be possible for them to invade India and cross Sindhu River? But Kath, Malav, Kshudrak, Madrak, Kekay were unable to grasp this common-sense that Taxila is door to thier kingdoms as well.

The boundaries of our Rashtra lie as far as the expanse of our Sanskriti. This entire land from Himalayas to Indian ocean is our own Rashtra, is the seat of our own Sanskriti. It is nobody's but our duty to protect the sovereignty of this land. If we do not unite now, invasions will be recurring and the history will be repititive. What is required primarily is to unite politically under one umbrella, thus facilitating the rise and revival of this glorious Rashtra."

Although there is no historic evidence that this speech were actually the words of Chandragupt, the actions of Chandragupt and Chanakya after the consolidation of Magadh were on similar lines. They were the first dynasty in Late period of ancient Indian history which thought of and succeded in politically unifying entire Indian subcontinent for 150 years. This is said to be the first golden age of India in late period of ancient history.

Tremendous thought process is involved on the behalf of Dr. Chandraprakash Dwivedi who wrote, directed, produced and acted in this epic TV serial as title role of Chanakya. This TV series has emerged as a classic, the credit goes to this marvelously knowledgeable individual. I have feebly tried to translate this awesome speech for the readers of my blog. Pardon me for any insufficiencies. The importance of this speech is that it explains the subtle fact that the Sanskriti based unity has been prevalent in India since ancient times and this unity has manifested itself time and again thoughout the annals of history. Those who negate the existence of this unity and hold that India came into existence after British occupation, this speech is one of the firm answers given to their rebuttal.

I quote my statement again which I made few posts ago - India is not merely a nation-state. It is an eternally existent and coherent phenomenon, an idea, which values the set of Dharma-based meme-complex as its core Sanskriti. This speech was extremely instrumental in increasing my understanding of this complex phenomenon called India.

For Non-Indian readers of blog - The terms "Sanskriti" and "Rashtra" vaguely translate to Civilization and Nation. But these two words do not convey everything which is conveyed by Sanskriti and Rashtra and the essence is lost in translation. If France and Germany are nations, then Europe is something similar to Rashtra. India is a Rashtra on vaguely similar lines, although not accurately. In spite of all the linguistic and cultural differences, all the nation-states of Europe in essence are part of same Rashtra and follow same Sanskriti which is set of values at the core of any civilization.